Title: Dirt: The Movie Director: Bill Benenson Release Year: 2009 What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
This film is about how important dirt is to our society. It discusses how dirt and it's produce can positively effect us as a society. It explains how dirt is important to biodiversity and that without it it would be impossible for us to survive.
What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
The main sustainability problem presented in the film is that healthy dirt is important for our survival. Without it we wouldn't be able to grow our produce. The dirt we have nowadays is worse than the dirt that used to be around. We have begun to monocrop increasing amounts of fields. What this does is it pulls the same nutrients out of the soils year after year leading to dirt that needs increasing amounts of fertilizer to counteract the missing nutrients. The film states that if we used crop rotation instead the plants would help regenerate the soil.
The problem of nitrogen fertilizer was also brought up in the documentary. More farmers are using more Nitrogen fertilizer to counteract the worsening soil from the monocultures. When it rains this fertilizer joins the runoff into the near by watersheds and makes it into rivers and tributaries. This fertilizer then leads to deadzones which are places in the water which are oxygen depleated. This kills off the animals on the bottom of the ocean/river and leads to other problems with the fish. Also if the deadzone is big enough the fish will die as well. This nitrogen in the ocean then becomes nitros oxide which then accelerates the speed of climate change.
The film briefly covered the problem of mountaintop removal. The problem with this is that it releases a plethora of heavy metals that the dirt would usually have had covered up. This leads to these metals getting into our water systems damaging animal and plant life. Also it has health effects on residents in the area causing increased cancer risks due to polluted drinking water.
The overarching problem though is that we are practicing unsustainable ways of dealing with dirt. We are letting it erode away and be picked up by wind and dumped in the ocean. It takes years to make topsoil and yet we treat it like dirt (pun intended). The way we are being raised is addressed as a sustainability problem. We are raised to see dirt as having very little worth.
The city of Los Angeles spends hundreds of thousands of dollars a year to transport water from Northern California and other areas, this in itself is a sustainability problem but the source of this problem has very much to do with dirt. Los Angeles has paved over such a large amount of dirt that rain water has no where to go and is funneled into the ocean. If there was more open dirt the dirt would be able to soak it up and save it for plants and human use.
What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
I found that the story of the dust bowl was an important lesson that we as a country should have learned. Instead it seems that we are bound to repeat the same mistake. The only reason that it hasn't reocurred is that we have more technology that is delaying it.
The harm that fertilizers cause our planet was a very persuasive argument for me. I love the ocean and many activities that depend on it. I have seen first hand what bleaching can do to our ocean and our coral reefs.
The garbage to garden section of the film caught my attention as well. It seemed like an excellent solutionto help get rid of some of our waste. This way we kill two birds with one stone. Get healthy dirt and lessen the amount of waste going into landfills.
What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?
I founjd that the argument stating that micro-organisms were aware of us was a weaker argument. It was posed in the way that we would see them as caring beings but in fact the micro-organisms in dirt are some of the most simplistic organisms. The part of the movie that covered the religious importance of dirt might as well not have been in the documentary as far as I am concerned. All it did was show me that there are some religious areas that take sacred dirt seriously. It did not show me that they care about any dirt besides the dirt from the religious area. There were also some people in the documentary advocating for the sustainable use of dirt that did not quite click with me. For example one girl in the movie states that they were, "kicking it old school" and then something about a "dirt high". They seemed like they were a little crazy. Also another man in the movie was sowing seeds and ranting about, "connecting with the seeds with my soul".
What audiences does the film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers?
I find that this movie has a wide audience range. The little dirt animations although a little corny for older audiences were genuinely funny at times and would also attract the attention of younger (middle school aged) kids. This film catered to the needs of everyone from middle school to grandmothers. There are parts that are less serious so this wouldn't be best for a group of somber people, but besides that, the audience would enjoy the movie. Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems?
Yes, at least for me it did. I learned a lot about dirt from this film. As of now I don't have a position in society where I can make changes based on this film but I can definitely see a school principal, for example, decide to take out some of the concrete at the school he worked at. I at least am more interested in composting now that I have seen how easy it is to do.
What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental education value?
The film's environmental education value was relatively sound compared to other films shown in class. The film talked about the origin of dirt which I thought was a nice addition to the film. This way it's audience knows a little background information on the topic of the movie. The religion part of the film showed how dirt was tied into a whole plethora of religions. Mostly related to creation. Also although it makes perfect sense, I had never thought about how dirt can affect the flavor of the plants growing in it. It would be good if the film educated it's audience on how we are fortunate to have the food we do. There are many places where people are starving due to how they treated their dirt and I think that that is an important message to get across. Just because we are a wealthier country doesn't mean that we can continue to desacrate the dirt we live on.
What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?
The film had a part where jail inmates helped make the city nearby greener by planting trees and tending gardens. I think that this is a great way for them to help give back to the community while incarcerated. They could also helpout with making playgrounds at school greener by tearing up some of the concrete. The film advocated 'getting your hands in the dirt' to the point where I would list it as one of their ways of invervening with the current outlook on dirt. I find this a weak point of intervention for adults, but think it's a great way for kids to being enjoying the outdoors.
What additional information does the film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc?
I've been told many times that monoculture is bad but I have never really understood the difference in the crops that are produced. What I found was that if crops were grown in a monoculture fashion without fertilizer there would be almost no growth. This is because pathogens in the soil are able to adapt to the plants that are being grown, thus the need for fertilizer to help protect the plants as well as to boost their growth. The fertilizers we use today allow farmers to grow crops on nearly barren soil. This topsoil can easily be blown away by wind or washed away by rain. It will only be a bit of time before it's all gone.
Director: Bill Benenson
Release Year: 2009
What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
This film is about how important dirt is to our society. It discusses how dirt and it's produce can positively effect us as a society. It explains how dirt is important to biodiversity and that without it it would be impossible for us to survive.
What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
The main sustainability problem presented in the film is that healthy dirt is important for our survival. Without it we wouldn't be able to grow our produce. The dirt we have nowadays is worse than the dirt that used to be around. We have begun to monocrop increasing amounts of fields. What this does is it pulls the same nutrients out of the soils year after year leading to dirt that needs increasing amounts of fertilizer to counteract the missing nutrients. The film states that if we used crop rotation instead the plants would help regenerate the soil.
The problem of nitrogen fertilizer was also brought up in the documentary. More farmers are using more Nitrogen fertilizer to counteract the worsening soil from the monocultures. When it rains this fertilizer joins the runoff into the near by watersheds and makes it into rivers and tributaries. This fertilizer then leads to deadzones which are places in the water which are oxygen depleated. This kills off the animals on the bottom of the ocean/river and leads to other problems with the fish. Also if the deadzone is big enough the fish will die as well. This nitrogen in the ocean then becomes nitros oxide which then accelerates the speed of climate change.
The film briefly covered the problem of mountaintop removal. The problem with this is that it releases a plethora of heavy metals that the dirt would usually have had covered up. This leads to these metals getting into our water systems damaging animal and plant life. Also it has health effects on residents in the area causing increased cancer risks due to polluted drinking water.
The overarching problem though is that we are practicing unsustainable ways of dealing with dirt. We are letting it erode away and be picked up by wind and dumped in the ocean. It takes years to make topsoil and yet we treat it like dirt (pun intended). The way we are being raised is addressed as a sustainability problem. We are raised to see dirt as having very little worth.
The city of Los Angeles spends hundreds of thousands of dollars a year to transport water from Northern California and other areas, this in itself is a sustainability problem but the source of this problem has very much to do with dirt. Los Angeles has paved over such a large amount of dirt that rain water has no where to go and is funneled into the ocean. If there was more open dirt the dirt would be able to soak it up and save it for plants and human use.
What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
I found that the story of the dust bowl was an important lesson that we as a country should have learned. Instead it seems that we are bound to repeat the same mistake. The only reason that it hasn't reocurred is that we have more technology that is delaying it.
The harm that fertilizers cause our planet was a very persuasive argument for me. I love the ocean and many activities that depend on it. I have seen first hand what bleaching can do to our ocean and our coral reefs.
The garbage to garden section of the film caught my attention as well. It seemed like an excellent solutionto help get rid of some of our waste. This way we kill two birds with one stone. Get healthy dirt and lessen the amount of waste going into landfills.
What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?
I founjd that the argument stating that micro-organisms were aware of us was a weaker argument. It was posed in the way that we would see them as caring beings but in fact the micro-organisms in dirt are some of the most simplistic organisms. The part of the movie that covered the religious importance of dirt might as well not have been in the documentary as far as I am concerned. All it did was show me that there are some religious areas that take sacred dirt seriously. It did not show me that they care about any dirt besides the dirt from the religious area. There were also some people in the documentary advocating for the sustainable use of dirt that did not quite click with me. For example one girl in the movie states that they were, "kicking it old school" and then something about a "dirt high". They seemed like they were a little crazy. Also another man in the movie was sowing seeds and ranting about, "connecting with the seeds with my soul".
What audiences does the film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers?
I find that this movie has a wide audience range. The little dirt animations although a little corny for older audiences were genuinely funny at times and would also attract the attention of younger (middle school aged) kids. This film catered to the needs of everyone from middle school to grandmothers. There are parts that are less serious so this wouldn't be best for a group of somber people, but besides that, the audience would enjoy the movie.
Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems?
Yes, at least for me it did. I learned a lot about dirt from this film. As of now I don't have a position in society where I can make changes based on this film but I can definitely see a school principal, for example, decide to take out some of the concrete at the school he worked at. I at least am more interested in composting now that I have seen how easy it is to do.
What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental education value?
The film's environmental education value was relatively sound compared to other films shown in class. The film talked about the origin of dirt which I thought was a nice addition to the film. This way it's audience knows a little background information on the topic of the movie. The religion part of the film showed how dirt was tied into a whole plethora of religions. Mostly related to creation. Also although it makes perfect sense, I had never thought about how dirt can affect the flavor of the plants growing in it. It would be good if the film educated it's audience on how we are fortunate to have the food we do. There are many places where people are starving due to how they treated their dirt and I think that that is an important message to get across. Just because we are a wealthier country doesn't mean that we can continue to desacrate the dirt we live on.
What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?
The film had a part where jail inmates helped make the city nearby greener by planting trees and tending gardens. I think that this is a great way for them to help give back to the community while incarcerated. They could also helpout with making playgrounds at school greener by tearing up some of the concrete. The film advocated 'getting your hands in the dirt' to the point where I would list it as one of their ways of invervening with the current outlook on dirt. I find this a weak point of intervention for adults, but think it's a great way for kids to being enjoying the outdoors.
What additional information does the film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc?
I've been told many times that monoculture is bad but I have never really understood the difference in the crops that are produced. What I found was that if crops were grown in a monoculture fashion without fertilizer there would be almost no growth. This is because pathogens in the soil are able to adapt to the plants that are being grown, thus the need for fertilizer to help protect the plants as well as to boost their growth. The fertilizers we use today allow farmers to grow crops on nearly barren soil. This topsoil can easily be blown away by wind or washed away by rain. It will only be a bit of time before it's all gone.
http://books.google.com/books?id=iuAaBmRkDAQC&pg=PA95&lpg=PA95&dq=monoculture+without+fertilizer&source=bl&ots=g5k0_u8tbd&sig=iNxSBjD0wdqxSjZL0xXdo7-vfr0&hl=en&ei=CA3TTMqZKIP78AaY0qjhDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=monoculture%20without%20fertilizer&f=false
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/5475964/crop_monoculture_a_bad_technique_for.html